I can understand the design here..it's about lack of control to some degree..just like it was in the Civil War. I think you have to go with the flow and play as a Civil War Commander than a wargamer..this means you have to give up alot of control and try your best with the means you have with orders and then hope your men carry them out.

Still the game isn't for me, maybe if I had an interest in the War it would but I played the very first game many years ago and quite liked it but it didn't hold me.

Also I think as said be a lower ranking commander with less units to manage and be a cog in the wheel rather than taking on the whole army and having to run around everywhere. I expect the higher the command the less of a control freak you have to be.

I can understand the design here..it's about lack of control to some degree..just like it was in the Civil War ....

According to the old TC manual, the game was designed to be as realistic as possible, i.e., "fog of war"; based on their traits, subordinate commanders will not always do as you want to simulate delayed and misunderstood orders, or even cowardice on their part.

The "dilemma" for the player to solve is how and when to use your own initiative, i.e., "Take Command," so as to fit your command unto the "same sheet of music" as your peer commanders.

It reminds me of that scene in the film Gettysburg when a Confederate General didn't take a hill as "suggested" by Lee, resulting in a bitter meeting between one of his subordinates and Lee about him.

Perhaps it's best to have a "c'est la guerre" attitude when playing this game.

Yogi the Great -> RE: Great Game & Expected Frustration (10/7/2012 7:01:10 PM)

Well, I won't blame the game I'll just blame me. I don't get it and perhaps I will come back someday when I have plenty of time and patience to figure it out. The frustration factor for now has won and I will go back to games that are more fun and playable without having to devote hours to learn the mechanics. I have trouble just finding units and figuring out where they are much less moving them in proper order. Too bad so much potential and nice to watch. But I have better things to do than spend so much time just trying to move units into place. Just not fun for me. I know that others will find many enjoyable hours playing this game. Just not my cup of tea so to speak. Have fun all. Maybe some day I'll have a sudden Aha moment and figure it out.

Well, I won't blame the game I'll just blame me. I don't get it and perhaps I will come back someday when I have plenty of time and patience to figure it out. The frustration factor for now has won and I will go back to games that are more fun and playable without having to devote hours to learn the mechanics. I have trouble just finding units and figuring out where they are much less moving them in proper order. Too bad so much potential and nice to watch. But I have better things to do than spend so much time just trying to move units into place. Just not fun for me. I know that others will find many enjoyable hours playing this game. Just not my cup of tea so to speak. Have fun all. Maybe some day I'll have a sudden Aha moment and figure it out.

Needless to say, a disappointment, but entirely understandable. SOW is a learned experience, and fun doesn't figure into the equation for many in the beginning. But the diehards, primarily us Southerners with strong heritage feelings, embrace it immediately, bear with the steep learning curve, and persevere just for the sake of changing history, and saving the South from the northern aggressors...those damned Yanks, ya know.

Our SOW forum however, bears little resemblance to these North South territorial and political disputes. We are family, all equal. We cooperate mostly and other times we bicker. We pledge to keep it civil, but if need be, we have our Rant and Rave section to handle disputes more vocally. Gotta have that place to vent, I used it recently.[sm=fighting0056.gif]

So, it pains us to lose someone that tried so hard to make the game work for them. You are a true gentleman by declaring your reasons for departure and not just bashing the game. I especially know how the game can be unfun, so I understand. I really don't enjoy playing the stock game anymore. I need my mods that change it for my preferences and basically my own designs to challenge me, and with the challenges, I find my fun, and immersion.

I have trouble just finding units and figuring out where they are much less moving them in proper order. Too bad so much potential and nice to watch ...

Well, I hope the eye candy hasn't exceeded the game's replayability, but when you return to it, remember that you can tell what units you control by down arrow'ing from your highest commander, then left and right arrow for other peer commanders; you can always cross-ref to the map to see the "eye"-con as to where the currently selected commander is, but frankly I prefer the smaller scenarios.

I have trouble just finding units and figuring out where they are much less moving them in proper order. Too bad so much potential and nice to watch ...

Well, I hope the eye candy hasn't exceeded the game's replayability, but when you return to it, remember that you can tell what units you control by down arrow'ing from your highest commander, then left and right arrow for other peer commanders; you can always cross-ref to the map to see the "eye"-con as to where the currently selected commander is, but frankly I prefer the smaller scenarios.

Yeah, thanks for the navigation tips, I wasn't sure what Yogi meant. I can't stand the keyboard navigation, that's why I have them modded to my toolbar.

Good plug for the smaller scenarios, I suggest this often in our designs, but tend to get overruled because some folks above me insist that once a scenario is scripted on the Corps or division levels, what's the point of covering the same action with several brigade level designs. I disagree, and I think folks, like you, will concur that the individual brigades within the big picture have their own story to tell, and can be equally entertaining.

Good plug for the smaller scenarios, I suggest this often in our designs, but tend to get overruled because some folks above me insist that once a scenario is scripted on the Corps or division levels, what's the point of covering the same action with several brigade level designs. I disagree, and I think folks, like you, will concur that the individual brigades within the big picture have their own story to tell ...

... a story that can hit home when those brigades contain units from your own state.

Norb -> RE: Great Game & Expected Frustration (10/11/2012 1:57:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Well, I won't blame the game I'll just blame me. I don't get it and perhaps I will come back someday when I have plenty of time and patience to figure it out. The frustration factor for now has won and I will go back to games that are more fun and playable without having to devote hours to learn the mechanics. I have trouble just finding units and figuring out where they are much less moving them in proper order. Too bad so much potential and nice to watch. But I have better things to do than spend so much time just trying to move units into place. Just not fun for me. I know that others will find many enjoyable hours playing this game. Just not my cup of tea so to speak. Have fun all. Maybe some day I'll have a sudden Aha moment and figure it out.

This game is not for everyone. There are too many RTS games out there if you want total control. We try to simulate combat and will never become another RTS clone. It was never our goal with this game. We just think it's unrealistic to have 100000 soldiers do exactly what you want them to do and although I know it's not perfect by far, we have always tried to make the experience as realistic as is in our ability. It's what this game is at it's heart and that's not something we are going to change. It is frustrating to try and fight against the core of the game. Thanks for giving it a shot.

It's doubtful, but I won't say a definite no. The problem we have right now is that we have been patching this game forever. And it's not really bugs, but new features. We've been adding them for two years. We have a huge list of features that people want to have and most are really good ideas. But at some point we just have to say enough and move on with our plans for the next game in the series. We could spend a year just adding new features. But we really want to add MAJOR new features to the next version. We just don't have the manpower to keep working on this and switch to a new game. So right now the plan is to finish Chancelersville and then release a new GB demo, and then finally move on. There is a small chance that we might do another feature patch, but personally I think it's doubtful and even if we did do it I cannot guarantee that this would be in there. I understand the desire for this feature, but you can currently almost do the same thing as you can pause the game and look around to plan your orders.

This game is not for everyone. There are too many RTS games out there if you want total control. We try to simulate combat and will never become another RTS clone. It was never our goal with this game. We just think it's unrealistic to have 100000 soldiers do exactly what you want them to do ...

Sometimes you can't even get one general to cooperate; case in point, Maj. Gen. Leonidas Polk.

"Bragg accurately summed up Polk's character when he wrote: 'Genl. Polk by education and habit is unfitted for executing the plans of others. He will convince himself his own are better and follow them without reflecting on the consequences.'"

The problem we have right now is that we have been patching this game forever. And it's not really bugs, but new features. We've been adding them for two years. We have a huge list of features that people want to have and most are really good ideas. But at some point we just have to say enough and move on with our plans for the next game in the series.

It's doubtful, but I won't say a definite no. The problem we have right now is that we have been patching this game forever. And it's not really bugs, but new features. We've been adding them for two years. We have a huge list of features that people want to have and most are really good ideas. But at some point we just have to say enough and move on with our plans for the next game in the series. We could spend a year just adding new features. But we really want to add MAJOR new features to the next version. We just don't have the manpower to keep working on this and switch to a new game. So right now the plan is to finish Chancelersville and then release a new GB demo, and then finally move on. There is a small chance that we might do another feature patch, but personally I think it's doubtful and even if we did do it I cannot guarantee that this would be in there. I understand the desire for this feature, but you can currently almost do the same thing as you can pause the game and look around to plan your orders.

I always liked Take Command. Could be as frustrating as hell but the feel was so real. Looks so pretty too. I have always felt that most games that were really easy to learn got old fast unless there was a special spark. Sometimes I do not want to learn a whole new system, but that is how you get a new experience. There is much joy when you finally get them little toon soldiers to do what you told them. I am reminded of a young fellow who posted on the fora some years ago when he was bitterly disappointed after saving up all his gummi bears money and buying Longest Day. His complaint: A) When his troops took casualties they went to ground or ran away and did not charge to their annihilation like "real" soldiers, B) He could not bring his destoyed tanks back to life, and C) When he finally captured a new region he couldn't gather resources, build a new base and spawn more troops. He felt it was a very poor wargame. You can imagine the response. I did not read anybody like that in this thread but new and different is new and different. I found I learnt best with little brigade battles with limited objectives so I could learn first what my troops could do and thus what I could expect to achieve with them. When I first plunged into a corps size action I was utterly overwhelmed and very quickly demoted myself to brigade. Over time I got a little better. Sometimes I think these games should come with a pause function under a big red CHEAT! button. That way you could do that with a big flashing red CHEAT sign you'd have to hide from your kids. cheers

The concept of this series of games is excellent, but I have to agree the unit movement is cumbersome and difficult to control with precision. Could the game be programmed with a unit movement system similar to the one in the Total War tactical battles? Moving units is very simple and intuitive in the Total War tactical battles.

Great post. I am new to the entire series… purchased Gettysburg last week, and have completed the tutorials, started a scenario, started a couple sandbox games and even installed a couple mods.

I feel your frustration! This game, as do the other main RT titles such as combat mission and TW, all have so much potential and yet never seem to fulfill that potential. The problem is not with the folks doing the incredible coding. In fact, I applaud the work done on SOW! It is amazing. The problem is that true RT simulations (and that is what RT really is – a simulation) require your subordinates units to act more realistically than is currently possible with our technology at this point.

For me SoW is a more a simulation of 19th century chain of command than tactical simulation. I was fully expecting (actually hoping more than expecting) that I would be able to send a simple command to a division, or brigade commander (i.e. move to someone’s left flank and hold XXXX farm, deny the flank at all costs) and the receiving commander should be able to shift troops, optimize terrain advantages, and report back to me on unfolding situation. Unfortunately, current capabilities do not allow for us to code this level of independent AI behavior. The AI is incapable of maximizing terrain (i.e. forming ranks in the fold between two ridges before going over the top and attacking the next ridge line), taking advantage of opportunities or knowing when and how to request assistance.

So the game does devolve down to a click fest. I remain optimistic for the future though because RT is the most accurate and realistic form of war gaming (if we ever get the AI up to a more realistic capability.)

I’ll stick with SoW because the attention to detail, accurate research and incredible investment of time put in by the SoW team. I can only hope the next version of SoW can address some the issues discussed in other threads.

By the way, since we are wishing... we need a bigger, more effective map (command map)! It is almost usless for issueing orders.

Zap -> RE: Great Game & Expected Frustration (11/25/2012 10:57:37 PM)

I think the comments from redmarkus4 are very valid and better explain some of the frustration I was talking about. It would also help with the "realism" feel of the game if the troops actually could properly form a line behind fences, walls, ditch lines etc. and stop the automatic unrealistic moves. Also my cavalry has gotten on and off theeir horses so many times without me doing anything to cause it it was a bit distracting if nothing else. Also as described in the one AAR they love to charge even when they should be holding. Now I am not a programmer so I have no idea how difficult, expensive or possible it may be to "fix" these items. The earlier game I mentioned in the first post had these same types of issues. I have also found that trying to click on the unit you want and/or then double click a point for it to go to doesn't always register and you may have to do it several times before you get what you want.

Ok once again to end on the good things, very interesting game, fun to watch, worth the purchase and great potential. However I do feel that the "frustration factors" might end up being enough of a turn off to some to not buy expansions or future games based on the mechanics if the game can't be more responsive to some of what has been discussed. Like some previous games I have had, once the initial fun and new factor wears off, I would hate to have frustration make it be one more game collecting dust. Right now I am just enjoying it.

[/quote]

Thanks everyone for your impressions. surely ' for me, the important negatives(can't give orders in pause) (units not following commands) will keep me from buying. I love the period and that its tactical. Usually, I would be a purchaser. But after the experience WWI gold (bugs) I'm going to sit on the sideline until some of the game issues can be addressed.

I don't want any more experiences as Yogi mentioned above where the newness of the game wears off. And the frustrations keep me from playing.

As someone who usually stays away from RTS games, I will chime in. I recently bought SOW and have been trying to master commanding a Div. So far, I have found the game extremely realistic in all respects. Some things irritate me, and I still have teething pains but I have found that knowing your commanders is the best thing to do.

Cavalry charging without orders or mounting/dismounting is a pain, but usually is caused, the charging anyway, by aggressive officers. I found the less aggressive ones will more stand their ground without charging, or will charge when the enemy to their front starts to waver. But that is exactly what cavalry is supposed to do, plus they historically had very aggressive officers anyway and to this day.

I have had brigades in reserve close to the main line and had them react to a sudden appearance by the enemy without orders from me. I have had brigades in the line pull back flanked units without orders, or actually react to flank an enemy unit.

Pause to give orders would be a nice feature. But I also can learn to do it without it. Without it actually makes the game more realistic IMO. We have the godlike knowledge of instant recon reports. We do not have to wait on couriers to arrive and tell us what is happening unless a player limits his aerial view to ground level.

IMO, this game is actually fantastic and I look forward to any new releases. I would advise any future potential players to buy the game. For realistic, it is extremely close to perfect.

Zap -> RE: Great Game & Expected Frustration (1/10/2013 3:01:40 AM)

Well, I decided to but this game. The uncontrolled units issue has been somewhat explained. So I thought I would give the game a chance. Hope I'm not disappointed. Will give my impressions after I get into it.

You would have to register to post up, but we are all pretty newb at it and get our butts handed to us by the AI all the time. We all learn together versus the AI and could always use another regular. We usually try to squeeze in 1 on Sat and 1 on Sunday. Some times we get even more in. We have just started with 1 of us taking Corp command, the others Div, when we started out, it was 2 of us at Div level and 2 commanding brigades under one of the Div commanders. So we can maybe help you thru the learning curve some.

I would also love to hear how experienced players get around this, as I would love to enjoy this game and to be fair to it, it's obvious many do. I suspect just beyond these problems lies my dream game! I will stay on the fence for now anyhow.

It's really very simple. It's a COMMAND type game not a do as I say all the time type game. It's not a clickfest if you play it "correctly". You're not suppose to command every single unit on the map. You're just suppose to send orders for the AI to oblidge you IF it can. Every AI commander in the line has a mind of its own. Even though you send orders just like in the real battle they may or may not be able to preform them so they will preform their own based on the "situation". Playing Army commander you just send orders to your Corp Commanders who in turn will send orders to their Division Commanders who in turn will send orders on down the line of their own specific division and their subordinates send orders to do the same. Most of the time they will follow your orders, but, after those orders are complete they will do their own thing.

Now this is where the TAKE COMMAND option comes in and the reason for the origional title. If you just can't stand the AI doing things without your permission then you can click the take command button/box and then that unit will be under your individual control. You can grab a regiment on up to a corp commander this way if you are playing an Army commander. I personnal just take a Brigade in a Division and have fun running all over the map to save the day. I still get orders from my Divisional Commander but I don't have to obey them. Afterall it's not like I'm going to get court martialed for not doing them.

For me though the fun and the way to play this game is from a perspective that you are in a "real" battle and "real" things happen out of your control. It plays a lot like Command OPS where you give orders but things don't alway go as you intended. Also, the courier feature makes this game even more realistic and fun. Your couriers might not make it to the officer you sent them to. It takes time for them to get there as well. It's so realistic to me I don't see how anyone could not enjoy it. Don't you think LEE had some fits because his commanders didn't do what he wanted them to? Remember Waterloo when NEY went charging in without infantry support? Napoleon didn't give that order.